> So you're giving a really unfair interpretation because no one is saying they're equally bad. They're (I'm) just saying that you're going to die in both situations
It is also possible for a person to simply contradict themselves.
What you are saying is they are equally bad outcomes.
You're also simultaneously implying that one is objectively worse than the other in every possible way.
As a clear example, in both these cases the outcome is "death" right? I think we all know we'd rather go out in our sleep that have our intestines ripped out. Both these have equal outcomes but I'd call you a liar if you didn't have a strong preference.
You might say these don't compare. I'd say that they do. If we come to that conclusion, one of us must be misinterpreting the other.
That the paths may seem less or more preferable isn't actually the point of your analogy, it's that either way in the end: You die.
You also made this analogy as a counterpoint to the claim that women are the big winners on dating apps by far.
It's like if someone said smokers and non-smokers are both going to die anyways.
While that's certainly true, the implication (that it doesn't matter whether or not you smoke), is wrong.
Likewise, the implication of your analogy is wrong in my opinion.
One is clearly far worse and you have already acknowledged this.
Getting 0 matches and being inundated with matches that don't work out are in no way comparably bad outcomes on a dating app. Especially because these are -matches-, and that's the key metric of success on virtually every dating app.
No, the analogy means both genders are not achieving their intended and goal.
Apples and oranges are both round fruit, but we still use this as an idiom because the distinction are important. In fact, the idiom itself is about things that have surface level similarities but that details matter.
Which you're right to point out that the details matter. I'm not disagreeing with your thesis. I'm disagreeing with your interpretation. If a doctor says you should eat more fruit, they don't care if you eat apples or oranges. Basically, context. You put too much information into what was intended to be conveyed. This has been explained to you. So now if you don't understand that's on you.
And I need to reiterate. Language is imperfect. You'll always be about to find reasons to disagree or misinterpret. This whole conversation is an illustration of the imperfection.
> and [dates are] the key metric of success on virtually every dating app.
Metrics are the downfall of meritocracies. Maybe this is why you're misunderstanding. No, dates are not the goal. Dates are a step along the path to the goal. The goal is to find a partner. Not for everyone, but that's definitely the goal in the context of this thread.
Your argument is that women are not the big winners on dating apps because the outcomes for both men and women are equally bad.
That is false.
Language is imperfect but that's not the problem right now, it's that you are playing fast and loose with words and blaming it on language.
I also very intentionally said "matches" and not "dates" because again, this entire thread is based on who the big winners of dating apps are.
The goal of dating apps is to get matches. Someone else has even pointed out that these apps might more appropriately be called "matching apps", and I don't think anyone including you would disagree. (But in case you do, note that these apps have no concept of "dates"... Only matches)
I'm not misunderstanding that this is a major failing of dating apps, I'm stating that as they are currently structured, based on the current rules: women are winning in dating apps.
That is and was the topic of conversation.
It wasn't stated that women are the big winners of romance and dating in general, and that's not what this thread is about. But you are attempting to make it about that in order to get away from your original point, which is still wrong, no matter how far we depart from it.
Going to put a pin in this though.
I think you also misunderstand. If given the choice, I'd rather die of dehydration in the ocean than in the desert. They both suck but that one seems better (having spent significant time in both regions). You'll get sunburned in both but in the desert there's nothing to cool you off. You'll be much more likely to survive longer in the ocean than desert, even if we ignore food availability.
So you're giving a really unfair interpretation because no one is saying they're equally bad. They're (I'm) just saying that you're going to die in both situations
As with anything in language, remember that your job is to figure out what the person means, not what they say. The words they use are a signal but it's compressed and fuzzy (especially on the Internet where we have many cultures -- big and small -- interacting with many different expected commission and decompression expectations).
It's always possible to gravely misinterpret anything anyone says, no matter how carefully they say it.